Walker v. Walker
85 So. 3d 553
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Florida First District Court of Appeal case reviewing a Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage between Edwin Kevin Walker and Brenda D. Walker.
- Appellant (Former Husband) challenges alimony, asset division, dissipation findings, and attorneys’ fees.
- Trial court awarded Brenda permanent periodic alimony; no explicit factual finding of need or ability to pay.
- Trial court distributed assets and liabilities but failed to provide individual asset valuations and liability designations as required by § 61.075(3), Fla. Stat.
- Trial court found dissipation of retirement assets by Former Husband, based on early lump-sum distributions and penalties.
- Appellate court reverses on multiple issues and remands for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Permanent alimony requires need findings | Walker—no specific need finding for Wife. | Walker—court may award alimony based on disparity; needs determination not shown. | Reverse; remand for explicit need and ability-to-pay findings or alternative alimony. |
| Asset distribution lacked required findings | Walker—distribution lacks individual asset valuations. | Walker—court had discretion; findings not necessary. | Reverse; remand to make specific findings or reconsider distribution. |
| Dissipation of marital assets unsupported | Walker—retirement funds not dissipated with intentional misconduct. | Walker—misconduct supported by penalties/taxes from distributions. | Reverse; no evidentiary support for intentional dissipation. |
| Attorney's fees to be reconsidered | Walker—fees should reflect changed financial resources. | Walker—fees may be adjusted after distribution. | Remand for reconsideration in light of revised financial positions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 1980) (requires explicit need/ability-to-pay findings for alimony)
- Mallard v. Mallard, 771 So.2d 1138 (Fla. 2000) (alimony framework acknowledgment)
- Segall v. Segall, 708 So.2d 983 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (remand for reconsideration of alimony/fees when financials change)
- Santiago v. Santiago, 51 So.3d 637 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (necessity of explicit findings supporting asset distribution)
- Guida v. Guida, 870 So.2d 222 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (distribution findings required for clarity)
- Belford v. Belford, 51 So.3d 1259 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (misconduct requires intentional dissipation evidenced by record)
- Roth v. Roth, 973 So.2d 580 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (intentional dissipation standard)
- Wright v. Wright, 613 So.2d 1330 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (economic support and alimony considerations)
- Rosecan v. Springer, 845 So.2d 927 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (permanent alimony not designed to equalize future income)
- Langevin v. Langevin, 698 So.2d 601 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (limitations on permanent alimony awards)